Modes of Communion

[Albion]

There are many ways that the Holy Communion elements--the bread and cup--are distributed to the worshippers (called "communicants"). To some extent, this varies by denomination, but there is a lot of crossover these days when it comes to that subject.

Which, if any, of the following methods do you consider inappropriate or even doctrinally wrong? Please explain your reasoning.

1. Both elements are passed to the communicants by deacons or ushers, etc. at the place where the people are already seated.

2. The bread and/or cup are handed over to the communicants at the front of the church and then the communicant ingests them by himself, one after the other.

3. Both elements are directly administered (fed) to the communicant by the pastor or assistant, etc. as the communicant either stands or kneels at the front of the church near the holy table.

4. Whatever the format happens to be, the bread gets (or may be) dipped into the wine/juice and then is consumed.

 

[tango]

I find option 4 curious. It's different from the other in the concept that the bread may be dipped in the wine rather than the bread and wine being consumed separately. I don't know that I'd consider it doctrinally wrong, it just feels a bit odd to me. I'm not even entirely sure why.

As far as options 1-3 are concerned it doesn't make a lot of difference to me whether each person goes forward for communion or if it's taken to them in their seats.

I sometimes wonder if we get a bit too caught up in the precise rituals of how we do communion and overlook the element of "in remembrance of me". If Jesus was basically telling us to remember him perhaps it's more important that we remember him and less important that we perform the ritual exactly as it was originally performed (which isn't recorded in a huge amount of detail).

 

[Lamb]

There are many ways that the Holy Communion elements--the bread and cup--are distributed to the worshippers (called "communicants"). To some extent, this varies by denomination, but there is a lot of crossover these days when it comes to that subject.

Which, if any, of the following methods do you consider inappropriate or even doctrinally wrong? Please explain your reasoning.

1. Both elements are passed to the communicants by deacons or ushers, etc. at the place where the people are already seated.

2. The bread and/or cup are handed over to the communicants at the front of the church and then the communicant ingests them by himself, one after the other.

3. Both elements are directly administered (fed) to the communicant by the pastor or assistant, etc. as the communicant either stands or kneels at the front of the church near the holy table.

4. Whatever the format happens to be, the bread gets (or may be) dipped into the wine/juice and then is consumed.

Pre-covid we did #2 where we were ushered up to the altar, at the rail, we kneeled down and received first the body of the Lord (bread) and then His blood (wine).

My church is still doing covid formalities so we have those little kits that I'm not particularly fond of. We are ushered to a table where they are laid out and we each take one then go back to the pew and wait until the pastor guides us to taking first the bread and then the wine. Then an usher comes around and collects the vessels.

 

[Albion]

Pre-covid we did #2 where we were ushered up to the altar, at the rail, we kneeled down and received first the body of the Lord (bread) and then His blood (wine).

My church is still doing covid formalities so we have those little kits that I'm not particularly fond of. We are ushered to a table where they are laid out and we each take one then go back to the pew and wait until the pastor guides us to taking first the bread and then the wine. Then an usher comes around and collects the vessels.

Sounds like I needed an option #5 on the list!

 

[Albion]

I find option 4 curious. It's different from the other in the concept that the bread may be dipped in the wine rather than the bread and wine being consumed separately. I don't know that I'd consider it doctrinally wrong, it just feels a bit odd to me. I'm not even entirely sure why.

As far as options 1-3 are concerned it doesn't make a lot of difference to me whether each person goes forward for communion or if it's taken to them in their seats.

I sometimes wonder if we get a bit too caught up in the precise rituals of how we do communion and overlook the element of "in remembrance of me". If Jesus was basically telling us to remember him perhaps it's more important that we remember him and less important that we perform the ritual exactly as it was originally performed (which isn't recorded in a huge amount of detail).

All of that response strikes me as entirely reasonable, but as a point of information...having the bread dipped into the wine prior to giving it is the historic way of the Orthodox Eastern churches. There, the priest does it and then puts it into the communicant's mouth on a spoon.

Also, in the Anglican churches, it has become common (but not the norm) for the communicant to hold the host (bread) in his hand when it's placed there by the priest, and then to dip it himself into the chalice when, a few moments later, he comes by, administering the wine to the row of communicants. That's called Communion by "intinction." I think it's also done in the Roman Catholic Church,

 

[Castle Church]

That's called Communion by "intinction." I think it's also done in the Roman Catholic Church,

Yes, but it is not super common in the RCC. I have also seen it done this way in Lutheran and Methodist churches.

My church does #2. I don't find any of the options listed particularly scandalous.

 

[Josiah]

2


.

 

[tango]

All of that response strikes me as entirely reasonable, but as a point of information...having the bread dipped into the wine prior to giving it is the historic way of the Orthodox Eastern churches. There, the priest does it and then puts it into the communicant's mouth on a spoon.

Interesting, I didn't know that. I guessed some places must do it for it to be listed as an option

Also, in the Anglican churches, it has become common (but not the norm) for the communicant to hold the host (bread) in his hand when it's placed there by the priest, and then to dip it himself into the chalice when, a few moments later, he comes by, administering the wine to the row of communicants. That's called Communion by "intinction." I think it's also done in the Roman Catholic Church,

Maybe Anglican churches do things differently in different countries. The church where my wife and I got married was an Anglican church and I never saw that method before. When they did communion the priest gave each person the wafer and then they used a shared cup. It's a long time since I've been to that church, my guess is that post-COVID the shared cup has been replaced with something else. It always seemed to me to be an invitation to issues with hygiene and the spread of all sorts of pathogens, even long before COVID.

ETA: Where I used to live there was an Anglican church. Sometimes at times of the year where church attendance was expected to be down (usually the summer holidays) my church used to share services with the Anglican church. They did communion the same way as I described above. I didn't take communion there because I didn't like the shared cup thing.

 

[Albion]

Maybe Anglican churches do things differently in different countries. The church where my wife and I got married was an Anglican church and I never saw that method before.

It seems to be gaining acceptance more recently, but as I said it's still not the norm. Also, I think that that practice got a boost during the Covid heyday when everyone was worried about catching the disease from someone else. Studies have shown that this (intinction) doesn't help much, but people have their own theories when it comes to Covid.

...did communion the priest gave each person the wafer and then they used a shared cup. It's a long time since I've been to that church, my guess is that post-COVID the shared cup has been replaced with something else.

Unlikely. That's still the most common practice.

I mentioned intinction only to try to cover the field of possible styles, but also because it's an actual practice in some parts of Christianity and long has been.

 

[tango]

It seems to be gaining acceptance more recently, but as I said it's still not the norm. Also, I think that that practice got a boost during the Covid heyday when everyone was worried about catching the disease from someone else. Studies have shown that this (intinction) doesn't help much, but people have their own theories when it comes to Covid.

Sure, back when people were afraid of their own shadows we replaced our regular communion (we file forward, take a piece of bread and an individual cup, eat and drink, then return to our seats) with individual all-in-one packages. It had a double-sealed lid where you peeled back the first lid to reveal a tiny wafer, then peeled back the second lid to access the juice. The trouble was a lot of our church are elderly and struggled to open them, so we had people on hand to open them. But that reintroduced touching things, so the people wore gloves. Great idea in theory but it's even harder to open the things wearing gloves, and of course without changing gloves between each cup the theoretical chance of transferring things from one to another was still there.

But a lot of people saw "gloves", thought "safe" and were happy.

Unlikely. That's still the most common practice.

I mentioned intinction only to try to cover the field of possible styles, but also because it's an actual practice in some parts of Christianity and long has been.

That's a surprise, I'd have thought COVID would have made more people wary of sharing a cup with an unknown number of strangers. I wonder if people aren't concerned, or are concerned but don't want to rock the boat, or if more people simply don't take part.

 

[Albion]

Sure, back when people were afraid of their own shadows we replaced our regular communion (we file forward, take a piece of bread and an individual cup, eat and drink, then return to our seats) with individual all-in-one packages. It had a double-sealed lid where you peeled back the first lid to reveal a tiny wafer, then peeled back the second lid to access the juice.

I remember reading that one church gave up that idea because the sound of everybody ripping off the seal simultaneously brought complaints over how inappropriate and distracting that feature was...and at this very special moment during the worship.

That's a surprise, I'd have thought COVID would have made more people wary of sharing a cup with an unknown number of strangers.

That's something to consider, but I think people are less afraid of the fluid itself than the fact that a series of other communicants have put their lips on the edge of the chalice.

By the way, this just reminded me of one more Communion variation. Some churches--mainly Lutheran, I think--came up with a chalice that has a pouring spout. So that means the minister communes the people with the "common cup," pouring some of the wine into each person's individual (small and disposable) cup. But no one other than he himself actually puts his lips on the chalice.

 

[tango]

I remember reading that one church gave up that idea because the sound of everybody ripping off the seal simultaneously brought complaints over how inappropriate and distracting that feature was...and at this very special moment during the worship.

Curious. I don't think the ones we had made any discernible noise, they were just intensely fiddly. Far too fiddly for the more elderly members of our church to like them. I'm used to working with small components and I didn't like them. At least they did actually open as indicated, unlike so many other containers where you find that the tab pulls off leaving the container still sealed and without a tab to unseal it. It would seem very unceremonious to end up using a pocket knife to cut open the communion container.

That's something to consider, but I think people are less afraid of the fluid itself than the fact that a series of other communicants have put their lips on the edge of the chalice.

My concern isn't so much the original liquid as the unknown number of people who have drunk from the cup and the potential for what I've always known as backwash. Even before concerns about COVID existed it seemed like an easy way to spread other pathogens.

By the way, this just reminded me of one more Communion variation. Some churches--mainly Lutheran, I think--came up with a chalice that has a pouring spout. So that means the minister communes the people with the "common cup," pouring some of the wine into each person's individual (small and disposable) cup. But no one other than he himself actually puts his lips on the chalice.

Interesting. That's another one I've never seen

 

[Albion]

Curious. I don't think the ones we had made any discernible noise, they were just intensely fiddly.

That certainly could be the case. I was thinking of one particular package, and your description sounded quite like it--a cover that was to be peeled back, revealing a host situated on top of a tiny chalice-shaped container of grape juice. Right? But there must be different variations on that theme.

My concern isn't so much the original liquid as the unknown number of people who have drunk from the cup and the potential for what I've always known as backwash. Even before concerns about COVID existed it seemed like an easy way to spread other pathogens.

Oh yes, that's a concern for some. However, in practice it doesn't appear that people DO often get infected with anything because of the communicant next to them. But when Covid hit, that raised the specter of an epidemic and some people who hadn't given much thought to what we're discussing suddenly did feel threatened.

And then too, it's often pointed out that the priest would always be sick in an Anglican church if disease were easily spread that way, simply because he's instructed to personally consume whatever wine is left over after the people have received.

 

[tango]

That certainly could be the case. I was thinking of one particular package, and your description sounded quite like it--a cover that was to be peeled back, revealing a host situated on top of a tiny chalice-shaped container of grape juice. Right? But there must be different variations on that theme.

That's the one. A fiddly film lid to reveal the bread, then another fiddly film lid to reveal the juice. I was more concerned with how much of the juice would end up on the floor because of older people struggling to open them than I was about the noise of them being opened. I guess film is quieter than foil, and maybe the noisier ones featured foil instead?

There probably are a few variations on the theme. If I recall we tried one variation and then decided to find another way. One time we had the individual cups but fewer of them, so people could take one without touching any of the adjacent cups, and we had people on hand wearing gloves to replenish the supply of individual cups. We had a similar thing with the bread - individual pieces of bread in individual cups so people could file forward, take one of each, then eat and drink and return to their seat.

Oh yes, that's a concern for some. However, in practice it doesn't appear that people DO often get infected with anything because of the communicant next to them. But when Covid hit, that raised the specter of an epidemic and some people who hadn't given much thought to what we're discussing suddenly did feel threatened.

I guess if you face a virus that you think will kill you, you behave differently to if you face a virus that might make the next few days a little bit uncomfortable.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to hope that if someone knew they were sick they wouldn't rush forward to drink from a communal chalice. But then when illnesses can be contagious before the host knows they are sick you wouldn't necessarily associate your fresh new cold with the person before you at communion a few days previously, especially if they weren't coughing and sneezing to draw attention to their cold.

And then too, it's often pointed out that the priest would always be sick in an Anglican church if disease were easily spread that way, simply because he's instructed to personally consume whatever wine is left over after the people have received.

That would make at least some sense, although in the same line that you'd expect a doctor to permanently be sick because they are always around sick people. Perhaps it's a very minor vector for transmission, or perhaps the priest (who presumably also visits sick people more regularly than most people) just develops a stronger immune system much like a doctor.